Trial reportDiabetes care2024
Medical Assistant Health Coaching for Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care: Results From a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Diabetes care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 2025 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis cluster (clinic-level) randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared medical assistant (MA) health coaching (MAC) with usual care (UC) among at-risk adults with type 2 diabetes in two diverse real-world primary care environments: a federally qualified health center (FQHC; Neighborhood Healthcare) and a large nonprofit private insurance-based health system (Scripps Health). RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA total of 600 adults with type 2 diabetes who met one or more of the following criteria in the last 90 days were enrolled: HbA1c ≥8% and/or LDL cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg. Participants at MAC clinics received in-person and telephone self-management support from a specially trained MA health coach for 12 months. Electronic medical records were used to examine clinical outcomes in the overall sample. Behavioral and psychosocial outcomes were evaluated in a subsample (n = 300).
resultsAll clinical outcomes improved significantly over 1 year in the overall sample (P < 0.001). The reduction in HbA1c was significantly greater in the MAC versus UC group (unstandardized Binteraction = -0.06; P = 0.002). A significant time by group by site interaction also showed that MAC resulted in greater improvements in LDL cholesterol than UC at Neighborhood Healthcare relative to Scripps Health (Binteraction = -1.78 vs. 1.49; P < 0.05). No other statistically significant effects were observed.
conclusionsThis was the first large-scale pragmatic RCT supporting the real-world effectiveness of MAC for type 2 diabetes in U.S. primary care settings. Findings suggest that this team-based approach may be particularly effective in improving diabetes outcomes in FQHC settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.